Received: by nummer-3.proteosys id <01C19443.45E1D7EC@nummer-3.proteosys>; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 11:41:59 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 x-vm-v5-data: ([nil nil nil t nil nil nil t nil][nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.45E1D7EC" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: structure.tex Date: Sun, 1 Sep 1991 01:00:00 +0100 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: From: Sender: "LaTeX-L Mailing list" To: "Rainer M. Schoepf" Reply-To: "LaTeX-L Mailing list" Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 371 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.45E1D7EC Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable \chapter{Some e-mail comments about structure} \label{structure} \begin{footnotesize}\begin{verbatim} From: MITTELBACH FRANK Date: Fri, 5 Oct 90 17:43:46 CET I would like to forward a mail from Nico which was a reaction to some discussions at the Cork meeting. ------------------------ forwarded mail ------------- .. > Front matter > ------------ > Currently, an article starts with \title, \author and \date > instructions. In the Elsevier styles I have added \address, > \received, \revised and \accepted commands, and also a keyword > environment, similar to the abstract environment. By doing so, we can > automatically convert a LaTeX-coded document to an SGML-coded > document. \end{verbatim}\end{footnotesize} \begin{center} --- \end{center} \begin{footnotesize}\begin{verbatim} From: Don Hosek Date: Mon, 18 Feb 91 16:36:00 PST A few items which have been brought up previously, but I'm willing to bring them up again now that I have some direct experience with the situation in a production situation: \chapter*, to make sense, should work as follows: - A TOC entry should be generated - Headers should be appropriately modified + All sections contained in it should be unnumbered. Not sure about "numbered-within" items like equations and figures. The situation has yet to come up Other sectioning commands should work similarly Items like \tableofcontents and \thebibliography which currently use \something* to generate heads can use the low-level commands to get at the header alone. Things would make more sense in the style files this way as well. My use of \chapter* is to mark the prefatory sections of a document. The first non-starred chapter command switches to arabic numerals for pages. .. \end{verbatim}\end{footnotesize} \begin{center} --- \end{center} \begin{footnotesize}\begin{verbatim} From: Sebastian Rahtz Date: Tue, 19 Feb 91 13:54:39 gmt > \chapter*, to make sense, should work as follows: > - A TOC entry should be generated no, not necessarily. that should be clearly up to the style designer. I dont want Preface and Acknowledgments in my TOC, thanks, in style B > + All sections contained in it should be unnumbered. Not sure > about "numbered-within" items like equations and figures. The > situation has yet to come up again, this is not a universal rule. it might make sense, though, to copy the (S)GML world, and have a higher level constrcut like \begin{prefacesection} and \end{prefacesection} in which, by default, sections are all * type isn't Don's requirement catered for by the values of tocdepth and secnumdepth, used judiciously? one can reset them on the fly, yes? \end{verbatim}\end{footnotesize} \begin{center} --- \end{center} \begin{footnotesize}\begin{verbatim} From: Don Hosek Date: Wed, 20 Feb 91 19:14:00 PST > > \chapter*, to make sense, should work as follows: > > - A TOC entry should be generated >no, not necessarily. that should be clearly up to the style designer. >I dont want Preface and Acknowledgments in my TOC, thanks, in style B Well you might not, but picking five books at random from my bookshelf (it's so nice having a computer at home, finally), reveals: Norman Sherry, _The Life Of Graham Greene, Vol. I_: Various *-forms in TOC. Jan White, _Graphic Design for the Electronic Age_: ditto. Floyd L. Moreland & Rita M. Fleisher, _Latin: An Intensive Course_: ditto Leslie Lamport, _LaTeX: A Document Preparation System_: ditto. Bentley Layton, _The Gnostic Scriptures_: ditto. I haven't tried, but I suspect that there are no examples of the opposite practice in my library. > > + All sections contained in it should be unnumbered. Not sure > > about "numbered-within" items like equations and figures. The > > situation has yet to come up >again, this is not a universal rule. it might make sense, though, to >copy the (S)GML world, and have a higher level constrcut like >\begin{prefacesection} and \end{prefacesection} in which, by default, >sections are all * type >isn't Don's requirement catered for by the values of tocdepth and >secnumdepth, used judiciously? one can reset them on the fly, yes? Kind of. You get one tocdepth per document, the one in affect when \tableofcontents is executed. One _could_ exert some effort in writing \setcounter{tocdepth} commands to the toc, but I'm not inclined to bother. Setting secnumdepth to a negative number for the prefatory material, though is a very appealing idea and solves the problem quite nicely. I think I'm going to change a few sections of my LaTeX book once I finish this note. Incidentally, in keeping with established LaTeX usage, I would suggest that we have single commands to indicate the beginning of prefatory material and the beginning of the body a la \appendix and \ps (think about that one... the analagy seems to be the best way for my students to understand what \ps is about when I teach the LaTeX course). \end{verbatim}\end{footnotesize} \begin{center} --- \end{center} \begin{footnotesize}\begin{verbatim} From: David Rhead ... Date: 20 Feb 91 16:20:30 BACKGROUND Most users of TeX and LaTeX 2.09 are not committed TeXies: they just = want typesetting that looks as if it was produced by traditional means. If TeX/LaTeX are working in terms of structures/concepts/practices that are different from those adopted in mainstream publishing, authors (and = support staff) are going to be forever translating from LaTeX-speak to = publisher-speak. I appreciate that TeX and LaTeX 2.09 were produced in limited time, and = that if their authors had had to completely research = structures/concepts/practices before they started coding, they might never have had time to write any = code. But if, with the move to LaTeX 3.0, there are opportunities to phase out the old ways of doing things and to phase in new ways of doing things, I think that it is worth taking these opportunities to move LaTeX in the direction of traditional mainstream publishing. Then the communications problems between designers and computer-people will be reduced, and = authors will be able to get what designers intend fairly painlessly. Thus, I tend to think that, if some aspect of LaTeX 2.09 is out of line with traditional mainstream publishing practice, then it is LaTeX 2.09 that is in "the wild blue yonder". Admittedly, it's not always easy to identify what is fundamental in traditional mainstream publishing, but = its better TO TRY than to risk leaving LaTeX out on a limb. \CHAPTER* As far as I can see, there is no concept in traditional mainstream publishing practice that really corresponds to \chapter*. The relevant concepts seem to be "front matter" (or "preliminary pages", or "prelims") and "back matter" (or "end pages" or "back matter"). Within these divisions, there are top-level units (Preface, Acknowledgements, Glossary, References, Index), but they aren't really chapters. See, for example, "Chicago Manual of Style", Chicago University Press, 1982, pages 4-5; Judith Butcher, "Copy-editing", Cambridge University Press, 1981, chapters 7, 8, 9; Hugh Williamson, "Methods of Book Design", Yale University Press, 1983, chapter 8; Ruari McLean, "The Thames and Hudson Manual of Typography", Thames and Hudson, 1980, chapter 10; Jan V. White, "Graphic Design for the Electronic Age", Watson-Guptill, 1988, pages 156-161; John Miles, "Design for Desktop Publishing" Gordon Fraser, 1987, pages 58-61. This divergence between LaTeX 2.09 and traditional publishing practice seems to be what causes: Don's problems; Sebastian to have to countenance resetting tocdepth and secnumdepth "on the fly" (OK for Sebastian, but I think that it would just put ordinary users off); ordinary mortals to mess around with \pagenumbering{roman} and "\pagenumbering{arabic} right after the first \chapter command". Don wants to signal "prefatory sections" (i.e., what a publisher would call "front matter", "preliminary pages" or "prelims"). In his design, "front matter" has: TOC entry; modified headings; page numbering in roman; equations and figures unlikely. I presume that modifying the effect of \chapter* to meet Don's requirements would violate the decision that "LaTeX 3.0 should be able to process LaTeX 2.09 input files", so we'd be talking in terms of phasing something else in to meet his requirements. Sebastian's design happens to treat "front matter" differently from = Don's, but I think he still has a chunk of document that would be recognised as "front matter", etc. I agree with Sebastian that "a higher level construct" would be = appropriate. I'd suggest something like \begin{prelimpages} ... \end{prelimpages} \begin{maintext} ... \end{maintext} \begin{endpages} ... \end{endpages} [If you want a precedent, I think that MIT-press-book.sty envisages that the author will go \begin{frontmatter} ... \end{frontmatter}.] Then the user wouldn't have to bother about: the \chapter/\chapter* distinction; \pagenumbering; \addcontentsline. Such details should be taken care of by the designer, via the style file. The designer will be thinking in terms of "preliminary pages" and "end pages", the user will "tell" LaTeX (via the environments) which pages are "preliminary pages" and "end pages", the user will have to think in the terms in which his/her publisher is thinking but won't have to bother with how to coerce LaTeX to make the "preliminary pages" and "end pages" conform to the publisher's design. As a bonus, = "preliminary pages" could have a \countN set appropriately to help page selection, = e.g. \count2 =3D 1, 2, 3 might mean "preliminary pages", "main text", "end = pages". .. \end{verbatim}\end{footnotesize} \begin{center} --- \end{center} \begin{footnotesize}\begin{verbatim} From: N.POPPELIER@NL.ELSEVIER Date: Thu, 21 Feb 91 09:03:38 +0000 I agree with David Rhead that there is a definite need for a division of = a book in front matter, body and back matter. In fact, last summer I = suggested that we start defining the structure of every class of documents for = which we will make a document style in SGML-like terms. Existing SGML dtd's for = books already contain the division David suggested. .. \end{verbatim}\end{footnotesize} \begin{center} --- \end{center} \begin{footnotesize}\begin{verbatim} From: CA_ROWLEY@UK.AC.OPEN.ACS.VAX Date: Mon, 8 Apr 91 13:22:53 GMT This message is partly ... and partly to say that David Rhead's suggestions seem to be a very reasonable outline programme for when we get to that stage. However, in the last sentence, he says: > I'd suggest a move towards the "publishing-industry standard" = structures. > The only such standard I know of at present for the logical structure of books is the AAP's DTD. I should therefore like to hear people's views as to whether we should be thinking about doing this and, also, from those more familiar with it (Nico!), whether it would be feasible/sensible etc. \end{verbatim}\end{footnotesize} \begin{center} --- \end{center} \begin{footnotesize}\begin{verbatim} From: Michael Downes Date: Mon, 8 Apr 91 18:46:30 CET I am currently working on a documentstyle with a slightly weird design. It's for a book consisting of chapters by various authors; the chapters are collected from various sources, and may be previously published, or given as a talk at some conference but not previously published, or written specifically for the current book. I am wondering about questions such as the following. ---Structure of a chapter: Make it exactly like a journal article? \title{Chapter title} \author{Chapter author} \affiliation{Author's university or institution} \maketitle Or use \chapter instead of \title? Each chapter is numbered with a big chapter number, which wouldn't normally be the case in, say, a conference proceedings volume. Maybe it's only a question of semantics; but if the publisher wants to call them chapters, my first choice is to use the \chapter command, to avoid confusing end users and the publisher's staff. However, this immediately raises another difficulty: \chapter does not normally have an associated \maketitle command, but the format of the author names and affiliations is such that typesetting each one as it comes along, and getting it in the right place, would be technically difficult. So I am leaning to the format \chapter{Chapter title} \author{Chapter author} \affiliation{Author's university or institution} \makechaptertitle But this is a little out of synch with the LaTeX manual. ---Processing each article separately or processing them together using \include. The main benefits of processing them together seem to be (a) less chance of error in the page numbering and (b) cross-references between chapters---but this is unlikely to be applicable for independent articles. The main drawback of processing articles by different authors together is the possibility of a global change in one article affecting subsequent articles in undesirable ways. Local changes can of course be limited to the original article by enclosing it in a group. In AMS journals we have experimented with processing all the articles of an issue together, and encountered undesirable global changes, as well as save stack overflow from the extra level of grouping, often enough that eventually we went to separate processing, with the sequence of articles controlled in a VAX/VMS DCL command procedure, and with the page number being passed from one article to the next using \write and \read. ---There is also a possibility in any given volume that certain commands might be required both within a chapter and at the outer level: \tableofcontents, \bibliography, \appendix. Something of course can be managed, but does anyone have previous experience and/or suggestions on how the user interface ought to look? Should I provide \tableofcontents and \chaptertableofcontents, \bibliography and \chapterbibliography, etc.? Or how about putting commands such as \frontmatter, \middlematter, \backmatter in the driver file that would change the effect of \tableofcontents, \bibliography, and \appendix commands? I.e., \documentstyle{X} \begin{document} % front matter beginning here \tableofcontents \include{preface} % containing \chapter{Preface} \include{notation} % containing \chapter{List of Notation} \middlematter \include{chapter1} % normal chapters, maybe containing \include{chapter2} % their own \tableofcontents, \appendix, \include{chapter3} % or \bibliography commands. ... \backmatter \appendix % switch to appendix format \include{app1} % \chapter{Appendix title} \include{app2} \include{biblio} % \bibliography \include{index} % \begin{theindex}...\end{theindex} \end{document} ---On another tangent, the way the \appendix command works has always seemed slightly odd to me. It would seem more natural to make \appendix a direct substitute for \section (in an article documentstyle) or \chapter (in a book documentstyle). Maybe in LaTeX 3.0, with its attribute handling, we'll be able to say something like \section[variant=3Dappendix]{...} ? The chief difficulty seems to be resetting the counter to 1, for the first such command, and incrementing it naturally thereafter. Other changes would be straightforward. \end{verbatim}\end{footnotesize} \begin{center} --- \end{center} \begin{footnotesize}\begin{verbatim} From: bbeeton Date: Mon, 8 Apr 91 19:42:51 CET mike downes has suggested the term \middlematter . the term \bodymatter is generally accepted among the sgml people i hang around in standards meetings, so i'd like to suggest that as a substitute. \end{verbatim}\end{footnotesize} \begin{center} --- \end{center} \begin{footnotesize}\begin{verbatim} From: N.POPPELIER@NL.ELSEVIER Date: Fri, 12 Apr 91 15:10:43 +0000 Chris more or less invited me to comment on the point of = publishing-industry standards and SGML. By coincidence, I have been looking at these things = the past week; next week I will be in CERN working on the AAP dtd and = conversions SGML <--> LaTeX. O.K., just a quick reply. Sorry haven't got more time. You can skip everything of this message if you wish, except the part with the ! in column 1. There are no real publishing-industry standards: there is a group of publishers who support the AAP dtd, but the AAP dtd's for scientific = articles and books are not always suited to the needs of publisher X. Therefore, publisher X adapts the AAP dtd to his purposes and (hopefully) tries to = stay as close to the original as possible. [The original, by the way, contains several errors, as was pointed out = in EPSIG News by Derek Coleman and Jan Bleeker of our company.] ! Nevertheless, the AAP dtd's for scientific articles and books serve as = good ! starting points and I would suggest that we try to create document = styles ! that are as close to these dtd's as possible. What you will immediately notice when you try this, is that they contain = much more elements and sub-elements, especially in the front matter. The front-matter elements of LaTeX's standard document styles are totally insufficient. I can understand Michael Downes' attempts at refining this structure -- in fact I've been doing the same here. [Another interesting initiative in the SGML field is the TEI initiative, which is an initiative from the area of humanities and linguistics. A different approach, but draft version 1.1 of TEI P1 contains interesting thoughts.] \end{verbatim}\end{footnotesize} \begin{center} --- \end{center} \begin{footnotesize}\begin{verbatim} From David Rhead ... Date: 12 Apr 91 20:46:08 Here are a few comments about Chris's and Nico's postings. Martin Bryan gives a DTD for textbooks in Appendix C of his "Author's Guide to SGML". I also seem to remember that the British Library had a project that was defining some DTDs (but I could have remembered = wrongly). Irrespective of whether there are formal standards yet (in terms of SGML DTDs, etc.), there does seem to be an informal consensus about "the structure of a book" within the publishing industry. See, for example, Hugh Williamson. "Methods of book design", chapters 7 and 8. Judith Butcher. "Copy-editing", chapters 7-10. Ruari McLean. "Thames and Hudson manual of typography", chapter = 10. Jan V. White. "Graphic design for the electronic age", pages = 157-161. "Chicago Manual of Style", pages 4 and 5. With a bit of luck, we'll find that the emerging DTDs are consistent with the previous informal consensus. For example, if the AAP and = Chicago University Press both manage to produce books in the end, they must both be talking about the same thing! As regards the "more elements and sub-elements, especially in the front matter", I think that this is a price worth paying if it means that LaTeX and the .sty file can relieve an author of more of the work. With more accurate knowledge of the structure, LaTeX could take care of details like: - when to have page-numbers, and whether they should be arabic or roman (rather than authors having to mess about with \chapter*, \addcontentsline, \pagenumbering{roman}, \pagenumbering{arabic} "right after the first \chapter command") - when to have table-of-contents entries. This would help "free authors from formatting concerns to allow them to concentrate on writing". \end{verbatim}\end{footnotesize} \begin{center} --- \end{center} \begin{footnotesize}\begin{verbatim} From: CA_ROWLEY@UK.AC.OPEN.ACS.VAX Date: Sat, 13 Apr 91 16:01:11 GMT Nico writes (apart from the very useful earlier parts of his message): > [Another interesting initiative in the SGML field is the TEI = initiative, > which is an initiative from the area of humanities and linguistics. A > different approach, but draft version 1.1 of TEI P1 contains = interesting > thoughts.] [TEI =3D Text Encoding Initiative] I have not read this document but knew of its existence: my reason for not mentioning it in my message is that my understanding of the TEI project is that it is intended to code a far larger range of "texts" (in particular, historical material) and a far larger range of properties of those texts (eg what prining press and which compositor produced them) than any system aimed at typesetting documents would need to encompass. Nevertheless, I am sure it contains some matter of interest. Is it any easier to study than the AAPs DTD? \end{verbatim}\end{footnotesize} \begin{center} --- \end{center} \begin{footnotesize}\begin{verbatim} From: David_Rhead@UK.AC.NOTTINGHAM.CCC.VME Date: Sun, 14 Apr 91 17:36:30 BST Barbara suggested \bodymatter (as apparently used by SGML people) as an alternative to the \middlematter used in one of Michael's = examples. The publishing gurus I mentioned in my last contribution use the terms: "The text" or "main text" (Williamson, p. 180) "The text" or "main book" (Butcher, pages 119 and 130) "Main text" (McLean, p. 157) "Text" (White, p. 159) "The text" or "text proper" (Chicago, pages 4 and 22) Would \maintext be worth considering as a command-name? (If we use = existing publishing-industry jargon rather than defining new jargon, the end-user gets spared the job of interpreting new jargon in terms of old jargon. Unless, of course, the publishing industry's jargon is in the process of changing, in which case we'd be better off using what they are changing = to.) \end{verbatim}\end{footnotesize} \begin{center} --- \end{center} \begin{footnotesize}\begin{verbatim} From: David_Rhead@UK.AC.NOTTINGHAM.CCC.VME Date: Mon, 15 Apr 91 09:54:21 BST Michael raised the question of a book that consists of contributions by various authors. Obviously, at the moment, he has to do whatever is necessary to get this particular book published. However, it would be nice if, in the long = term, there was a recognised way of producing these things. So I'll comment = on the questions he raised from a long-term point of view, even if the comments are not relevant to his short-term difficulty. It seems part of the question of a "conference-proceedings style" that I think Frank mentioned informally at Cork (unless I've remembered wrongly). Generally, I think that having jargon/structures designed for one = situation and then mis-using them in another situation will tend to give confusion and trouble. If computer-people and publishing-people use different = jargon, everyone is going to waste time translating from one to the other. If they use the same jargon (in this case "chapter") but mean different = things, that's even worse! In this situation, "being out of synch with the LaTeX manual" is only to be expected, since the LaTeX 2.09 standard styles weren't really designed to handle multi-author works. Using \author when its not clear whether the author is the "overall editor" or the "author of this = unit", or \chapter when the unit concerned isn't what everyone thinks of as a = chapter, seems like asking for trouble. The fundamental problem seems to be that the 2.09 standard styles don't include one that is designed for dealing with multi-author works. So, what's required? Judging by the Chicago Manual of Style and = Butcher's "Copy-editing", we are talking about "multiauthor works", that consist of "contributions" which are written by "contributors", where the whole thing is made into a book-like object by a "volume editor". So an appropriate set of jargon/structure might go like: \documentstyle[...]{multiauthor} \volumeeditor{...} \begin{frontmatter} ... \end{frontmatter} \begin{maintext} \begin{contribution} \contributor{...} ... \end{contribution} \begin{contribution} \contributor{...} ... \end{contribution} \begin{backmatter} ... \end{backmatter} "Contribution" sounds like a word that is already in use in this = context, so that people in the same situation as Michael and his publishers could = use it to avoid confusion about "the publishers calling the units chapters, but \chapter not being appropriate". Its sufficiently neutral to allow both designs that have "chapter numbers" and those that have no "chapter = numbers". [Within each contribution, it does seem more like a "journal article" = than like a "\chapter" so, if \volumeeditor was adopted to mean "volume = editor", one could probably use \author rather than \contributor without (too = much) confusion.] Hence, if necessary, \volumetableofcontents, \contribtableofcontents, etc. perhaps? If an approach such as that outlined above was adopted, only a small proportion of the people involved (the volume-editor, the publisher's = staff, the style-file hacker) would need to be aware of any of the above. The individual contributor to a multi-author work can regard themselves as producing a paper (e.g. in 2.09's \documentstyle{article}); indeed the volume-editor might send them some "instructions for contributors" = that tell them to do just that. So specialised commands/environments (such as "contribution") needn't necessarily be mentioned in the documentation aimed at ordinary end-users/contributors. Contributors could pick up \section etc. from the body of the LaTeX 3.0 manual; details (of = specialised environments like "contribution") needed by volume-editors could be = given in an appendix of the LaTeX 3.0 manual or just as comments in the style = files. \end{verbatim}\end{footnotesize} \begin{center} --- \end{center} \begin{footnotesize}\begin{verbatim} From: David_Rhead@UK.AC.NOTTINGHAM.CCC.VME Date: Mon, 15 Apr 91 10:28:13 BST Michael commented that: " ... the way the \appendix command works has always seemed slightly = odd to me. It would seem more natural to make \appendix a direct = substitute for \section (in an article documentstyle) or \chapter (in a book documentstyle). Maybe in LaTeX 3.0, with its attribute handling, = we'll be able to say something like \section[variant=3Dappendix]{...}" I presume that doing the above literally would conflict with the = requirement that LaTeX 3.0 should be able to process LaTeX 2.09 input files (which = might use \appendix as defined in the 2.09 manual). So \appendix would have to be left with its 2.09 meaning, but something better could be phased = in. Perhaps one could have ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.45E1D7EC Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable structure.tex

\chapter{Some e-mail comments about structure}
\label{structure}

\begin{footnotesize}\begin{verbatim}

From:     MITTELBACH FRANK = <PZF5HZ@EARN.DRUEDS2>
Date:     Fri, 5 Oct 90 17:43:46 = CET

I would like to forward a mail from Nico which was a = reaction
to some discussions at the Cork meeting.

------------------------ forwarded mail = -------------
..

> Front matter
> ------------
> Currently, an article starts with \title, = \author and \date
> instructions. In the Elsevier styles I have = added \address,
> \received, \revised and \accepted commands, and = also a keyword
> environment, similar to the abstract = environment. By doing so, we can
> automatically convert a LaTeX-coded document to = an SGML-coded
> document.
\end{verbatim}\end{footnotesize}
\begin{center} --- \end{center}
\begin{footnotesize}\begin{verbatim}
From:     Don Hosek = <DHOSEK@EDU.CLAREMONT.HMCVAX>
Date:     Mon, 18 Feb 91 16:36:00 = PST

A few items which have been brought up previously, but = I'm
willing to bring them up again now that I have some = direct
experience with the situation in a production = situation:

\chapter*, to make sense, should work as = follows:
- A TOC entry should be generated
- Headers should be appropriately modified
+ All sections contained in it should be unnumbered. = Not sure
  about "numbered-within" items like = equations and figures. The
  situation has yet to come up

Other sectioning commands should work similarly

Items like \tableofcontents and \thebibliography which = currently
use \something* to generate heads can use the = low-level commands
to get at the header alone. Things would make more = sense in the
style files this way as well.

My use of \chapter* is to mark the prefatory sections = of a
document. The first non-starred chapter command = switches to
arabic numerals for pages.

..
\end{verbatim}\end{footnotesize}
\begin{center} --- \end{center}
\begin{footnotesize}\begin{verbatim}
From:     Sebastian Rahtz = <S.P.Q.Rahtz@UK.AC.SOTON.ECS>
Date:     Tue, 19 Feb 91 13:54:39 = gmt

 > \chapter*, to make sense, should work as = follows:
 > - A TOC entry should be generated
no, not necessarily. that should be clearly up to the = style designer.
I dont want Preface and Acknowledgments in my TOC, = thanks, in style B

 > + All sections contained in it should be = unnumbered. Not sure
 >   about = "numbered-within" items like equations and figures. The
 >   situation has yet to come = up
again, this is not a universal rule. it might make = sense, though, to
copy the (S)GML world, and have a higher level = constrcut like
\begin{prefacesection} and \end{prefacesection} in = which, by default,
sections are all * type

isn't Don's requirement catered for by the values of = tocdepth and
secnumdepth, used judiciously? one can reset them on = the fly, yes?
\end{verbatim}\end{footnotesize}
\begin{center} --- \end{center}
\begin{footnotesize}\begin{verbatim}
From:     Don Hosek = <DHOSEK@EDU.CLAREMONT.HMCVAX>
Date:     Wed, 20 Feb 91 19:14:00 = PST

> > \chapter*, to make sense, should work as = follows:
> > - A TOC entry should be generated
>no, not necessarily. that should be clearly up to = the style designer.
>I dont want Preface and Acknowledgments in my = TOC, thanks, in style B

Well you might not, but picking five books at random = from my
bookshelf (it's so nice having a computer at home, = finally),
reveals:

Norman Sherry, _The Life Of Graham Greene, Vol. I_: = Various *-forms
in TOC.

Jan White, _Graphic Design for the Electronic Age_: = ditto.

Floyd L. Moreland & Rita M. Fleisher, _Latin: An = Intensive
Course_: ditto

Leslie Lamport, _LaTeX: A Document Preparation = System_: ditto.

Bentley Layton, _The Gnostic Scriptures_: = ditto.

I haven't tried, but I suspect that there are no = examples of the
opposite practice in my library.

> > + All sections contained in it should be = unnumbered. Not sure
> >   about = "numbered-within" items like equations and figures. The
> >   situation has yet to come = up
>again, this is not a universal rule. it might = make sense, though, to
>copy the (S)GML world, and have a higher level = constrcut like
>\begin{prefacesection} and \end{prefacesection} = in which, by default,
>sections are all * type

>isn't Don's requirement catered for by the values = of tocdepth and
>secnumdepth, used judiciously? one can reset them = on the fly, yes?

Kind of. You get one tocdepth per document, the one in = affect
when \tableofcontents is executed. One _could_ exert = some effort
in writing \setcounter{tocdepth} commands to the toc, = but I'm not
inclined to bother. Setting secnumdepth to a negative = number for
the prefatory material, though is a very appealing = idea and
solves the problem quite nicely. I think I'm going to = change a
few sections of my LaTeX book once I finish this = note.

Incidentally, in keeping with established LaTeX usage, = I would
suggest that we have single commands to indicate the = beginning of
prefatory material and the beginning of the body a la = \appendix
and \ps (think about that one... the analagy seems to = be the best
way for my students to understand what \ps is about = when I teach
the LaTeX course).
\end{verbatim}\end{footnotesize}
\begin{center} --- \end{center}
\begin{footnotesize}\begin{verbatim}
From:     David Rhead ...
Date:     20 Feb 91 = 16:20:30

BACKGROUND

Most users of TeX and LaTeX 2.09 are not committed = TeXies: they just want
typesetting that looks as if it was produced by = traditional means.  If
TeX/LaTeX are working in terms of = structures/concepts/practices that are
different from those adopted in mainstream = publishing, authors (and support
staff) are going to be forever translating from = LaTeX-speak to publisher-speak.

I appreciate that TeX and LaTeX 2.09 were produced in = limited time, and that
if their authors had had to completely research = structures/concepts/practices
before they started coding, they might never have had = time to write any code.
But if, with the move to LaTeX 3.0, there are = opportunities to phase out
the old ways of doing things and to phase in new ways = of doing things,
I think that it is worth taking these opportunities = to move LaTeX in the
direction of traditional mainstream publishing.  = Then the communications
problems between designers and computer-people will = be reduced, and authors
will be able to get what designers intend fairly = painlessly.

Thus, I tend to think that, if some aspect of LaTeX = 2.09 is out of line
with traditional mainstream publishing practice, then = it is LaTeX 2.09
that is in "the wild blue yonder".  = Admittedly, it's not always easy to
identify what is fundamental in traditional = mainstream publishing, but its
better TO TRY than to risk leaving LaTeX out on a = limb.

\CHAPTER*

As far as I can see, there is no concept in = traditional mainstream
publishing practice that really corresponds to = \chapter*.

The relevant concepts seem to be "front = matter" (or "preliminary pages",
or "prelims") and "back matter" = (or "end pages" or "back matter").
Within these divisions, there are top-level units = (Preface,
Acknowledgements, Glossary, References, Index), but = they aren't
really chapters.  See, for example,
"Chicago Manual of Style", Chicago = University Press, 1982,
      pages 4-5;
Judith Butcher, "Copy-editing", Cambridge = University Press, 1981,
      chapters 7, 8, = 9;
Hugh Williamson, "Methods of Book Design", = Yale University Press,
      1983, chapter = 8;
Ruari McLean, "The Thames and Hudson Manual of = Typography",
      Thames and Hudson, = 1980, chapter 10;
Jan V. White, "Graphic Design for the Electronic = Age", Watson-Guptill,
      1988, pages = 156-161;
John Miles, "Design for Desktop Publishing" = Gordon Fraser, 1987,
      pages 58-61.

This divergence between LaTeX 2.09 and traditional = publishing practice
seems to be what causes: Don's problems; Sebastian to = have to
countenance resetting tocdepth and secnumdepth = "on the fly" (OK for
Sebastian, but I think that it would just put = ordinary users off);
ordinary mortals to mess around with = \pagenumbering{roman} and
"\pagenumbering{arabic} right after the first = \chapter command".

Don wants to signal "prefatory sections" = (i.e., what a publisher would
call "front matter", "preliminary = pages" or "prelims").  In his design,
"front matter" has:  TOC entry; = modified headings; page numbering
in roman; equations and figures unlikely.  I = presume that modifying the
effect of \chapter* to meet Don's requirements would = violate the
decision that "LaTeX 3.0 should be able to = process LaTeX 2.09 input
files", so we'd be talking in terms of phasing = something else in to
meet his requirements.

Sebastian's design happens to treat "front = matter" differently from Don's,
but I think he still has a chunk of document that = would be recognised
as "front matter", etc.

I agree with Sebastian that "a higher level = construct" would be appropriate.
I'd suggest something like \begin{prelimpages} ... = \end{prelimpages}
\begin{maintext} ... \end{maintext} \begin{endpages} = ... \end{endpages}
[If you want a precedent, I think that = MIT-press-book.sty envisages that
the author will go \begin{frontmatter} ... = \end{frontmatter}.]
Then the user wouldn't have to bother about: the = \chapter/\chapter*
distinction; \pagenumbering; \addcontentsline.  = Such details should
be taken care of by the designer, via the style = file.  The designer
will be thinking in terms of "preliminary = pages" and "end pages",
the user will "tell" LaTeX (via the = environments) which pages
are "preliminary pages" and "end = pages", the user will have to think
in the terms in which his/her publisher is thinking = but won't have
to bother with how to coerce LaTeX to make the = "preliminary pages"
and "end pages" conform to the publisher's = design.  As a bonus, "preliminary
pages" could have a \countN set appropriately to = help page selection, e.g.
\count2 =3D 1, 2, 3 might mean "preliminary = pages", "main text", "end pages".

..
\end{verbatim}\end{footnotesize}
\begin{center} --- \end{center}
\begin{footnotesize}\begin{verbatim}
From:     = N.POPPELIER@NL.ELSEVIER
Date:     Thu, 21 Feb 91 09:03:38 = +0000

I agree with David Rhead that there is a definite need = for a division of a
book in front matter, body and back matter. In fact, = last summer I suggested
that we start defining the structure of every class = of documents for which we
will make a document style in SGML-like terms. = Existing SGML dtd's for books
already contain the division David suggested.

..
\end{verbatim}\end{footnotesize}
\begin{center} --- \end{center}
\begin{footnotesize}\begin{verbatim}
From:     = CA_ROWLEY@UK.AC.OPEN.ACS.VAX
Date:     Mon, 8 Apr 91 13:22:53 = GMT

This message is partly ... and partly to
say that David Rhead's suggestions seem to be a very = reasonable
outline programme for when we get to that = stage.

However, in the last sentence, he says:

> I'd suggest a move towards the = "publishing-industry standard" structures.
>
The only such standard I know of at present for the = logical structure
of books is the AAP's DTD.

I should therefore like to hear people's views as to = whether we should
be thinking about doing this and, also, from those = more familiar with
it (Nico!), whether it would be feasible/sensible = etc.
\end{verbatim}\end{footnotesize}
\begin{center} --- \end{center}
\begin{footnotesize}\begin{verbatim}
From:     Michael Downes = <MJD@COM.AMS.MATH>
Date:     Mon, 8 Apr 91 18:46:30 = CET

I am currently working on a documentstyle with a = slightly weird design.
It's for a book consisting of chapters by various = authors; the chapters
are collected from various sources, and may be = previously published, or
given as a talk at some conference but not previously = published, or
written specifically for the current book. I am = wondering about
questions such as the following.

---Structure of a chapter: Make it exactly like a = journal article?

  \title{Chapter title}
  \author{Chapter author}
  \affiliation{Author's university or = institution}
  \maketitle

Or use \chapter instead of \title?  Each chapter = is numbered with a big
chapter number, which wouldn't normally be the case = in, say, a
conference proceedings volume.

Maybe it's only a question of semantics; but if the = publisher wants to
call them chapters, my first choice is to use the = \chapter command, to
avoid confusing end users and the publisher's = staff.

However, this immediately raises another difficulty: = \chapter
does not normally have an associated \maketitle = command, but the format
of the author names and affiliations is such that = typesetting
each one as it comes along, and getting it in the = right place,
would be technically difficult. So I am leaning to = the format

  \chapter{Chapter title}
  \author{Chapter author}
  \affiliation{Author's university or = institution}
  \makechaptertitle

But this is a little out of synch with the LaTeX = manual.

---Processing each article separately or processing = them together using
\include. The main benefits of processing them = together seem to be (a)
less chance of error in the page numbering and (b) = cross-references
between chapters---but this is unlikely to be = applicable for
independent articles.  The main drawback of = processing articles by
different authors together is the possibility of a = global change in one
article affecting subsequent articles in undesirable = ways. Local
changes can of course be limited to the original = article by enclosing
it in a group. In AMS journals we have experimented = with processing
all the articles of an issue together, and = encountered undesirable
global changes, as well as save stack overflow from = the extra
level of grouping, often enough that eventually we = went to separate
processing, with the sequence of articles controlled = in a VAX/VMS DCL
command procedure, and with the page number being = passed from one
article to the next using \write and \read.

---There is also a possibility in any given volume = that certain commands
might be required both within a chapter and at the = outer level:
\tableofcontents, \bibliography, \appendix. Something = of course
can be managed, but does anyone have previous = experience and/or
suggestions on how the user interface ought to look? = Should I
provide \tableofcontents and = \chaptertableofcontents,
\bibliography and \chapterbibliography, etc.? Or how = about
putting commands such as \frontmatter, \middlematter, = \backmatter
in the driver file that would change the effect of = \tableofcontents,
\bibliography, and \appendix commands? I.e.,

       = \documentstyle{X}

       = \begin{document}
       % front matter = beginning here
       = \tableofcontents
       = \include{preface} % containing \chapter{Preface}
       = \include{notation} % containing \chapter{List of Notation}

       = \middlematter
       = \include{chapter1} % normal chapters, maybe containing
       = \include{chapter2} % their own \tableofcontents, \appendix,
       = \include{chapter3} % or \bibliography commands.
       ...

       = \backmatter
       \appendix % = switch to appendix format
       \include{app1} % = \chapter{Appendix title}
       = \include{app2}

       \include{biblio} = % \bibliography
       \include{index} = % \begin{theindex}...\end{theindex}

       = \end{document}


---On another tangent, the way the \appendix command = works has always
seemed slightly odd to me. It would seem more natural = to make \appendix
a direct substitute for \section (in an article = documentstyle) or
\chapter (in a book documentstyle). Maybe in LaTeX = 3.0, with its
attribute handling, we'll be able to say something = like

  \section[variant=3Dappendix]{...}

?

The chief difficulty seems to be resetting the counter = to 1, for the
first such command, and incrementing it naturally = thereafter. Other
changes would be straightforward.
\end{verbatim}\end{footnotesize}
\begin{center} --- \end{center}
\begin{footnotesize}\begin{verbatim}
From:     bbeeton = <BNB@COM.AMS.MATH>
Date:     Mon, 8 Apr 91 19:42:51 = CET

mike downes has suggested the term \middlematter = .  the term
\bodymatter is generally accepted among the sgml = people i hang
around in standards meetings, so i'd like to suggest = that as a
substitute.
\end{verbatim}\end{footnotesize}
\begin{center} --- \end{center}
\begin{footnotesize}\begin{verbatim}
From:     = N.POPPELIER@NL.ELSEVIER
Date:     Fri, 12 Apr 91 15:10:43 = +0000

Chris more or less invited me to comment on the point = of publishing-industry
standards and SGML. By coincidence, I have been = looking at these things the
past week; next week I will be in CERN working on the = AAP dtd and conversions
SGML <--> LaTeX.

O.K., just a quick reply. Sorry haven't got more time. = You can skip
everything of this message if you wish, except the = part with the ! in
column 1.

There are no real publishing-industry standards: there = is a group of
publishers who support the AAP dtd, but the AAP dtd's = for scientific articles
and books are not always suited to the needs of = publisher X. Therefore,
publisher X adapts the AAP dtd to his purposes and = (hopefully) tries to stay
as close to the original as possible.

[The original, by the way, contains several errors, as = was pointed out in
EPSIG News by Derek Coleman and Jan Bleeker of our = company.]

! Nevertheless, the AAP dtd's for scientific articles = and books serve as good
! starting points and I would suggest that we try to = create document styles
! that are as close to these dtd's as = possible.

What you will immediately notice when you try this, is = that they contain much
more elements and sub-elements, especially in the = front matter. The
front-matter elements of LaTeX's standard document = styles are totally
insufficient. I can understand Michael Downes' = attempts at refining this
structure -- in fact I've been doing the same = here.

[Another interesting initiative in the SGML field is = the TEI initiative,
which is an initiative from the area of humanities = and linguistics. A
different approach, but draft version 1.1 of TEI P1 = contains interesting
thoughts.]
\end{verbatim}\end{footnotesize}
\begin{center} --- \end{center}
\begin{footnotesize}\begin{verbatim}
>From      David Rhead = ...
Date:     12 Apr 91 = 20:46:08

Here are a few comments about Chris's and Nico's = postings.

Martin Bryan gives a DTD for textbooks in Appendix C = of his "Author's
Guide to SGML".  I also seem to remember = that the British Library had
a project that was defining some DTDs (but I could = have remembered wrongly).

Irrespective of whether there are formal standards yet = (in terms of SGML
DTDs, etc.), there does seem to be an informal = consensus about "the
structure of a book" within the publishing = industry.  See, for example,
      Hugh Williamson.  = "Methods of book design", chapters 7 and 8.
      Judith Butcher.  = "Copy-editing", chapters 7-10.
      Ruari McLean.  = "Thames and Hudson manual of typography", chapter 10.
      Jan V. White. = "Graphic design for the electronic age", pages 157-161.
      "Chicago Manual = of Style", pages 4 and 5.

With a bit of luck, we'll find that the emerging DTDs = are consistent
with the previous informal consensus.  For = example, if the AAP and Chicago
University Press both manage to produce books in the = end, they must both
be talking about the same thing!

As regards the "more elements and sub-elements, = especially in the front
matter", I think that this is a price worth = paying if it means that
LaTeX and the .sty file can relieve an author of more = of the work.
With more accurate knowledge of the structure, LaTeX = could take care of
details like:
- when to have page-numbers, and whether they should = be arabic or roman
  (rather than authors having to mess about with = \chapter*,
  \addcontentsline, \pagenumbering{roman}, = \pagenumbering{arabic}
  "right after the first \chapter = command")
- when to have table-of-contents entries.
This would help "free authors from formatting = concerns to allow them to
concentrate on writing".

\end{verbatim}\end{footnotesize}
\begin{center} --- \end{center}
\begin{footnotesize}\begin{verbatim}
From:     = CA_ROWLEY@UK.AC.OPEN.ACS.VAX
Date:     Sat, 13 Apr 91 16:01:11 = GMT

Nico writes (apart from the very useful earlier parts = of his message):

> [Another interesting initiative in the SGML field = is the TEI initiative,
> which is an initiative from the area of = humanities and linguistics. A
> different approach, but draft version 1.1 of TEI = P1 contains interesting
> thoughts.]
[TEI =3D Text Encoding Initiative]
I have not read this document but knew of its = existence:
my reason for not mentioning it in my message is that = my understanding
of the TEI project is that it is intended to code a = far larger range
of "texts" (in particular, historical = material) and a far larger range
of properties of those texts (eg what prining press = and which
compositor produced them) than any system aimed at = typesetting
documents would need to encompass.

Nevertheless, I am sure it contains some matter of = interest.  Is it
any easier to study than the AAPs DTD?
\end{verbatim}\end{footnotesize}
\begin{center} --- \end{center}
\begin{footnotesize}\begin{verbatim}
From:     = David_Rhead@UK.AC.NOTTINGHAM.CCC.VME
Date:     Sun, 14 Apr 91 17:36:30 = BST

Barbara suggested \bodymatter (as apparently used by = SGML people)
as an alternative to the \middlematter used in one of = Michael's examples.

The publishing gurus I mentioned in my last = contribution use the terms:
"The text" or "main text" = (Williamson, p. 180)
"The text" or "main book" = (Butcher, pages 119 and 130)
"Main text" (McLean, p. 157)
"Text" (White, p. 159)
"The text" or "text proper" = (Chicago, pages 4 and 22)

Would \maintext be worth considering as a = command-name?  (If we use existing
publishing-industry jargon rather than defining new = jargon, the end-user
gets spared the job of interpreting new jargon in = terms of old jargon.
Unless, of course, the publishing industry's jargon = is in the process of
changing, in which case we'd be better off using what = they are changing to.)
\end{verbatim}\end{footnotesize}
\begin{center} --- \end{center}
\begin{footnotesize}\begin{verbatim}
From:     = David_Rhead@UK.AC.NOTTINGHAM.CCC.VME
Date:     Mon, 15 Apr 91 09:54:21 = BST

Michael raised the question of a book that consists of = contributions by
various authors.

Obviously, at the moment, he has to do whatever is = necessary to get this
particular book published.  However, it would be = nice if, in the long term,
there was a recognised way of producing these = things.  So I'll comment on
the questions he raised from a long-term point of = view, even if the
comments are not relevant to his short-term = difficulty.  It seems part
of the question of a "conference-proceedings = style" that I think Frank
mentioned informally at Cork (unless I've remembered = wrongly).

Generally, I think that having jargon/structures = designed for one situation
and then mis-using them in another situation will = tend to give confusion
and trouble.  If computer-people and = publishing-people use different jargon,
everyone is going to waste time translating from one = to the other.  If
they use the same jargon (in this case = "chapter") but mean different things,
that's even worse!

In this situation, "being out of synch with the = LaTeX manual" is only
to be expected, since the LaTeX 2.09 standard styles = weren't really
designed to handle multi-author works.  Using = \author when its not
clear whether the author is the "overall = editor" or the "author of this unit",
or \chapter when the unit concerned isn't what = everyone thinks of as a chapter,
seems like asking for trouble.  The fundamental = problem seems to be that
the 2.09 standard styles don't include one that is = designed for dealing
with multi-author works.

So, what's required?  Judging by the Chicago = Manual of Style and Butcher's
"Copy-editing", we are talking about = "multiauthor works", that consist
of "contributions" which are written by = "contributors", where the whole
thing is made into a book-like object by a = "volume editor".  So an
appropriate set of jargon/structure might go = like:
      = \documentstyle[...]{multiauthor}
      = \volumeeditor{...}
      = \begin{frontmatter}
      ...
      = \end{frontmatter}
      = \begin{maintext}
      = \begin{contribution}
          = \contributor{...}
          = ...
      = \end{contribution}
      = \begin{contribution}
          = \contributor{...}
          = ...
      = \end{contribution}
      = \begin{backmatter}
      ...
      = \end{backmatter}
"Contribution" sounds like a word that is = already in use in this context, so
that people in the same situation as Michael and his = publishers could use it
to avoid confusion about "the publishers calling = the units chapters, but
\chapter not being appropriate".  Its = sufficiently neutral to allow both
designs that have "chapter numbers" and = those that have no "chapter numbers".
[Within each contribution, it does seem more like a = "journal article" than
like a "\chapter" so, if \volumeeditor was = adopted to mean "volume editor",
one could probably use \author rather than = \contributor without (too much)
confusion.]  Hence, if necessary, = \volumetableofcontents,
\contribtableofcontents, etc. perhaps?

If an approach such as that outlined above was = adopted, only a small
proportion of the people involved (the volume-editor, = the publisher's staff,
the style-file hacker) would need to be aware of any = of the above.
The individual contributor to a multi-author work can = regard themselves
as producing a paper (e.g. in 2.09's = \documentstyle{article});  indeed
the volume-editor might send them some = "instructions for contributors" that
tell them to do just that.  So specialised = commands/environments (such
as "contribution") needn't necessarily be = mentioned in the documentation
aimed at ordinary end-users/contributors.  = Contributors could pick up
\section etc. from the body of the LaTeX 3.0 manual; = details (of specialised
environments like "contribution") needed by = volume-editors could be given
in an appendix of the LaTeX 3.0 manual or just as = comments in the style files.
\end{verbatim}\end{footnotesize}
\begin{center} --- \end{center}
\begin{footnotesize}\begin{verbatim}
From:     = David_Rhead@UK.AC.NOTTINGHAM.CCC.VME
Date:     Mon, 15 Apr 91 10:28:13 = BST

Michael commented that:
    " ... the way the \appendix = command works has always seemed slightly odd
    to me. It would seem more natural = to make \appendix a direct substitute
    for \section (in an article = documentstyle) or \chapter (in a book
    documentstyle). Maybe in LaTeX = 3.0, with its attribute handling, we'll be
    able to say something like = \section[variant=3Dappendix]{...}"

I presume that doing the above literally would = conflict with the requirement
that LaTeX 3.0 should be able to process LaTeX 2.09 = input files (which might
use \appendix as defined in the 2.09 manual).  = So \appendix would have
to be left with its 2.09 meaning, but something = better could be phased in.
Perhaps one could have

------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.45E1D7EC--